A recent conversation with a friend of mine made me think about the concept of originality. I, and it seems others as well, put a lot value on an original item, be it work of art, literature or science. I am not questioning the point of originality in itself. What I thought interesting was how I view something depending on if I think it is the original or a copy. Given the choice between an original artwork or a copy, I would want the original every time; even if the copy was identical to the original. I am trying to understand the reason for this. For the purposes of a thought experiment, let's say whatever emotion the artwork is trying to capture, it is captured in the exact copy as well (e.g. every brushstroke, every note, and so on). Therefore the main emotional importance of this original work is the importance I have attributed to it. This can range from the artist's personality to the context of the work itself. If I am none the wiser about whether something is original or a copy, they would be equally "valuable" to me. So, it seems that a work of art is more than just the piece itself. However, what does this say about works by artist such as Eric Gill (who is thought to have abused his young daughters), Caravaggio (who is thought to have killed people), Wagner (who held anti-Semitic views), or even Roman Polanski (thought to have drugged and have sex with a minor)? Should their works be considered inferior to those who have acted "morally" in their lives?
Interesting thoughts Omar. For what it's worth though, I think you may have confused two separate (though equally provocative) questions: 1) what is the value of originality? 2) is the character of an artistist relevant to judging the value of their work? There is no need to mix the two questions together: my Carravaggio poster is less valuable than the original because it is further removed from the artist's own touch, not because me may have murdered someone.
ReplyDeleteIn answer to the first question, I think it all depends on whether you are a postmodernist or not. Damien Hirst, for example, built his entire career on challenging the traditional importance of originality. He rarely built any of his artworks himself, and he even sold kits for people to make their own versions of his one with the multi-coloured dots. Like Warhol, he wanted to say that if art is to reflect society then it has to reflect its commericalism first: and therefore art objects are reproducable commodities, not unique pieces of "genius". However, his project is undermined in my opinion by the fact that people do flock to see an "original" Damien Hirst, just as they do to see the original Mona Lisa. And he wants us to do so as well, since Hirst's central motivation seems to have been to get rich. And if people are gullible enough to value a diamond-encrusted skull as anything more than a very valuable skull, then why not?
Thanks for some very informative points there Joseph. I probably am taking two quite distinct issues and mixing them up. However, I am wondering if it is actually possible to completely separate the two. Let's take your point:
ReplyDelete"my Carravaggio poster is less valuable than the original because it is further removed from the artist's own touch,..."
It is this added value of the artist's touch that is making me ponder the topic. If a copy is identical to the original then it is surely our perception of art work that makes it valuable; our desire to create some link with the artist. So it seems that when we remove artist's touch/life from the work, it makes it unoriginal and of no value. I wonder if this intimate connection with the artist should go against as well as in favour of the art work (I shall leave "morality" as a relative term).
Hey OJ! Thanks for the link to this. I look forward to reading more of your musings.
ReplyDeleteJBOY
Interesting post OJ. I have to agree that I think there are two separate issues here regarding originality and context. I am more interested in the question of context. Whether the Artist's history or personal beliefs contribute to the power of a piece of Art. I would argue that I don't think it does. A Polanski film can still be a great film regardless of whether he is a criminal or not. The Art should be viewed independently of who made it as soon as it is in the public domain. I think it's too common to disregard someone or something's worth because of some irrelevant fact about that person. This might sound unnecessarily callous, but of course I don't agree with assaulting minors or murder, but I can dislike the person, and like their Art.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteLike yourself, I have considered separating the creation from the creator. (On a side note, in the past I have also advocated separating sports from politics e.g. England playing Zimbabwe cricket team, and not make a political statement about the ridiculous and dangerous Robert Mugabe.) However, I wonder if that is how it should be. Taking originality as starting point was an attempt at questioning the separation of the person from their work. Maybe it is possible to do so, but I cannot help feeling this is on the same spectrum as providing support for something unethical.
Hi Omar!
ReplyDeleteIn the context of artistic originality, it is all mixed up with money if you ask me - original has monetary value, copy is worthless.
Also - Roman Polanski was not "alleged" to have drugged and buggered a child - he pleaded guilty! (As part of a plea bargain to have charges and jail time reduced.) The man is essentially a convicted pedophile.
(Massively off topic but you know me!)
Hi Cara,
ReplyDeleteI think they are fair and relevant points. It does seem that monetary value has become the most important aspect of art. As Joseph K mentioned, Damien Hirst seems to be completely driven by money and it is working; first thing people ask is "how much is it worth?".
As for Polanski, well you know more about these things than me, but I decided to go with alleged as he hasn't had his trial yet. Anyway, you know what my opinion is of him!